Following on from the recent discussions on OoL about religion, we get some wonderful examples of rampant idiocy from someone calling themselves Libertarian in Scotland on this thread by Voice of Reason. Actually, for someone using the term libertarian in their moniker, he has a strange understanding of property rights.
Trying to hold a conversation with someone who is clearly holding a parallel one of their own with someone saying something completely different is an odd and unsettling experience – not a good one, mind, but something to witness. One feels like one has stepped into a parallel universe where nothing makes sense any more. Plain English and simple sentences that are easy to understand are misunderstood and misinterpreted with abandon. Here, then, is what it is like to engage with the religious – a waste of time and effort, clearly, as they can be highly irrational when challenged.
A very simple statement that witnessing is impolite and the religious should keep their religion private became unbelievably twisted and warped to the point where the logical fallacies were coming in thick and fast – not to mention a Godwin.
Jesus, but some folk can be dense. This one could bend light, frankly.
Do read and enjoy this example of wonderful idiocy. I’m dipping out of it now – you cannot reason with the unreasonable.
————————————
Update: In the end, despite warnings, the bloke just wouldn’t let up. He clearly cannot converse rationally, nor recognise when he has crossed a line. While James and I can sail close to the wind on these occasions, this twat was in a league of his own. We had to decide to stop the comments and delete his last couple of ad homs. It’s not often we have to resort to such heavy handed behaviour, but we were left with no choice. Reasonable people will stop when asked, this one just kept pushing the envelope.
Just passing through reading the links in your post.
That is some weird shit although an interesting argument. It seems to me not so much to do with you proving a negative (which you can’t anyway) but of them having to quantifying a null value which is also impossible unless you introduce ‘belief’.
As far as I’m concerned, belief forms only a tiny percentage of established fact, in religious terms its all of it which to my mind is unsupportable.
James (my fellow admin) and I agree on most things but this one and his penchant for conspiracy theories see us in vigorous disagreement. Unfortunately we then get the circular arguments and logic failures, but that pales into insignificance compared to this twat.
Christ on a bike, I thought your discussion with James was frustrating, but that one is just ridiculous!
🙄
I know, the bloke’s a cretin.
Actually, as I’ve posted elsewhere on OoL: – he is emphatically NOT a libertarian … he appears to be a Theocrat (euw)
As well as thick, that is!
This piqued my interest, so I went over to the other place to read all about it.
I completely agree with your criticism of this fellow but one thing that does occur to me, is why pick these religious arguements at all? Indeed, if you look at several of your recent posts here, there’s plenty of strident religion bashing going on, which is what really got this bloke exercised over there.
Live and let live methinks and I’ve no more desire to have someone lecturing me on how foolish, meaningless, wrong, scary etc. religion is (even if true), than to receive the dreaded knock on the door from the Jehovah’s Witness posse, or worse.
Your gaffe etc. but surely given all the many liberty-limiting issues going on at the moment, there’s more out there worthy of blogging about than this?
IMHO of course…
Oddly enough, you catch me in the middle of a post on this very subject. As a general rule I do avoid religion bashing – and if you read regularly, you will find me defending religion on occasion. However, if the subject is raised, I see no reason to remain mute.
The difference between the JWs and what I am doing is as you say, my gaff. If I want to discuss a subject, then that’s my prerogative. The JWs are trying to sell me their product on my property in the same way as the double glazing salesman and are equally unwelcome. I do not, generally, claim that people are foolish for believing, I do however challenge them to present some evidence to substantiate their claims. Yes, I know they cannot. That is what I want them to admit 😉
As for what got this chap incensed – it was certainly not a strident anti-religion comment – for what I said was pretty subdued; that people do not like to be subjected to witnessing. It’s about as welcome as a fart in a crowded lift. It doesn’t matter what you believe, it is boorish behaviour.
I do read regularly, and have for some years, hence my comment on the topic.
You do accept that people are free to believe in the religion of their choice but I don’t think you can reasonably claim to defend religion. In fact, you spend a lot of time attacking it, and not just in response to proselytising visitors to your blog, or comments from the likes of your mate on OoL.
Of course, I agree that it’s a belief system that can’t be proved (as far as I am aware anyway) but we know all that and so I still think there’s much more out there worthy of your interest (and opprobrium) than this. Your gaffe though as I’ve said, so have at it if you will.
I have on more than one occasion come to the defence of the religious when I feel that their liberty is being attacked. It just happens to be a subject under discussion at the moment. It will work its course. I use this place as a dumping ground for my thoughts, so will discuss what pleases me at any given time. If you think I’m strident, though, you must have led a very sheltered life. 😉
Hmm, as I said, I agree you have defended the right of an individual to practice a religion but it is not the same as defending religion itself, as you claim you have done above. Sorry if I missed that event of course.
Anyway, it’s such a sterile argument, as unless you are having a pop at someone who is a member of the CoE (who will do the rhetorical equivalent of apologising to you for you standing on his foot) you just get the stupid spat we have now seen on OoL. Great…
No, you didn’t. I didn’t express myself very well. As a general rule, I do not regard religion as a force for good. It can be, but often as not is a vehicle for intolerance and bigotry, which is a pity.
On this we can agree, it definitely is a pity.